Commissioned Diaconate (men and women)

[Justaguy]

Hey,

Greetings from a new guy to to the boards.



The PCA church I belong to is establishing a Diaconate after many years of not having one, and I have been nominated as one of the candidates.



The Session has decided to have a mixed male and female diaconate. While reading the PCA BCO I realized this wasn’t really kosher. Since then I’ve read all the backlogs of discussions on here about Deacons (back to 2008).



When emailing and talking to the TE, most of the justification seemed to be copy and pasted from the Tim Keller article (Tenth Pres, RPCNA, ARP, Calvin, Warfield, Piper, ect). The Session is not ordaining because Deacon is an office of service not of rule, and since the BCO conceptualizes ordination with authority, and women can’t have authority over men, they will be commissioning the entire diaconate.



Using the (D)eacon & (d)eacon terminology, I looked into all these examples provided above and they either ordain their men as Deacons and commissioned the women as deaconess, or ordained both men and women as Deacons. None of them only commissioned the entire diaconate.



I don’t see much historical examples of “commissioning” in lieu of ordain for women besides recently in the PCA. The commissioning looks A LOT like ordination, vows and all, but is conceptualized without giving authority.



Feels like not ordaining is not being faithful to the office, and dilutes the diaconate to just (d)eacons. Even Tenth Pres said, ““we have sought to honor the teaching of Scripture and our adoption of the Book of Church Order by ordaining men only as deacons—a useful and dignified office.”



Working through this mentally, since I didn’t grow up Presbyterian, I’m not sure how much I should make of the session drifting from the BCO. Not sure (logically) if I can vow to uphold the principles of polity in the BCO, while filling a role that’s not really in there. Also, not even sure why there are vows if I’m not being ordained into the denomination.



My personal theology and understanding of the office of Deacon is in line with the BCO, so not really here to discuss that. But would like to know if there are other examples that have been practiced. Can anyone provide examples from church history of the entire diaconate being commissioned?

 

[jwithnell]

If you look back over the last 100 years you likely can find every example of church candidates being ordained, commissioned, blessed, or beamed up. The question becomes: can these practices be found in the scriptures? In Acts 6, men are selected and the apostles lay hands upon them, a form that has been associated with ordination ever since. People of all stripes can and should contribute greatly to their congregations, but the scriptures give little indication of titles in the New Testament era apart from the initial apostles, elders, and deacons.

 

[Jack K]

Since you are uncomfortable with this, you should deal with it thoroughly now before you become a deacon or any others are ordained/commissioned. Be upfront with your pastor and your session about every concern you have, holding nothing back. Respectfully challenge them to explain their thinking and why they believe it is biblical, is proper in their denomination, allows you to take your vows in good conscience, doesn't cheapen the office you will hold (if indeed they call it an office), etc. If you are right and they need to refine their polity, it will be far easier for both you and them for that to happen now rather than continue to be an issue later. And since you've been nominated, I would think the matter is worthy of a meeting with the entire session, not just a talk and some emails with the pastor.

 

[Romans922]

A non-ordained deacon is a non-deacon.

 

[Justaguy]

A non-ordained deacon is a non-deacon.

Since you are in the RPCNA, do you know if the female deacons in the denomination are ordained or just commissioned?

 

[Romans922]

Since you are in the RPCNA, do you know if the female deacons in the denomination are ordained or just commissioned?

All deacons are ordained.

Act 6:6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

 

[Justaguy]

All deacons are ordained.

Act 6:6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

My church would call that commissioning. Unfortunately.

 

[Romans922]

My church would call that commissioning. Unfortunately.

Then what is ordination to them? There's no "commissioning" in Scripture.

 

[Justaguy]

Ordination, according to them, conceptualizes authority in the PCA BCO. They see the office of deacon as having no authority since it is "one of service, not rule". They use commissioning as a way of "ordination, without authority" since women cannot have authority over men. I think all this is problematic, which is why I ask in the OP if there are any examples of this from church history.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

They see the office of deacon as having no authority since it is "one of service, not rule".

At best, this is an over-simplification of the office. Yes, the word "deacon" means "servant". And yes, the diaconal office is not one primarily of bearing rule in the church, but of service. However, there is a real, if subservient, authority belonging to the office. Within their proper scope, deacons have real authority in the church. Are they subject to the elders of the church? Yes. Are they in any way to function like a board of directors? Absolutely not. But as it relates to those temporal and material matters of the ministry, they do and must have real authority, lest their office fails of the purpose for which it was created! (Acts 6:2-4)

Can it be imagined that in a church of thousands, only seven men would be appointed to do all that needed to be done to meet the needs of the congregation of Jerusalem if they were not invested with real authority? I think not. Surely, they would have needed to be competent administrators, enlisting the help of others to assist in the work. This would have required them having a real authority.

Some will object on the grounds that this will inevitably lead to "Deacon Rule". As someone raised in the SBC, I can say, I understand the fear. However, the key to avoiding this, is ensuring your governing documents outline the biblical scope of the deacon's ministry, making it clear they are subject to the oversight of the eldership of the church, regular and consistent preaching and teaching on the order prescribed by Christ in his churches, and that the elders of the church see to it they appoint only biblically qualified men, who are "of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom" (Acts 6:3).

These things being done, there is no need to fear deacons exercising their real and God-given authority in the church. Far from being a curse, it is a genuine blessing to pastors and people alike and will result in greater fruitfulness to the Kingdom of God.

 

[Justaguy]

At best, this is an over-simplification of the office. Yes, the word "deacon" means "servant". And yes, the diaconal office is not one primarily of bearing rule in the church, but of service. However, there is a real, if subservient, authority belonging to the office. Within their proper scope, deacons have real authority in the church. Are they subject to the elders of the church? Yes. Are they in any way to function like a board of directors? Absolutely not. But as it relates to those temporal and material matters of the ministry, they do and must have real authority, lest their office fails of the purpose for which it was created! (Acts 6:2-4)

Can it be imagined that in a church of thousands, only seven men would be appointed to do all that needed to be done to meet the needs of the congregation of Jerusalem if they were not invested with real authority? I think not. Surely, they would have needed to be competent administrators, enlisting the help of others to assist in the work. This would have required them having a real authority.

Some will object on the grounds that this will inevitably lead to "Deacon Rule". As someone raised in the SBC, I can say, I understand the fear. However, the key to avoiding this, is ensuring your governing documents outline the biblical scope of the deacon's ministry, making it clear they are subject to the oversight of the eldership of the church, regular and consistent preaching and teaching on the order prescribed by Christ in his churches, and that the elders of the church see to it they appoint only biblically qualified men, who are "of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom" (Acts 6:3).

These things being done, there is no need to fear deacons exercising their real and God-given authority in the church. Far from being a curse, it is a genuine blessing to pastors and people alike and will result in greater fruitfulness to the Kingdom of God.

I agree. But I'm also just a nominee. TBH, I don't think there is any worry ordination will lead to "deacon rule". More so, commissioning is more inclusive.

 

[Edward]

Using the (D)eacon & (d)eacon terminology, I looked into all these examples provided above and they either ordain their men as Deacons and commissioned the women as deaconess, or ordained both men and women as Deacons.

Your church is liberal, and out of accord with scripture. - and the PCA book of Church order (PCA BCO 7.2). But it is also improper to limit those assisting the deacons to the females of the congregation. (See PCA BCO 9-7)

Maybe give your pastor a copy of the BCO as a Christmas present. He apparently is unfamiliar with it.

 

[83r17h]

commissioning is more inclusive.

It the church believes that:
1) Christ has instituted men-only ordination of officers, and
2) Commissioning is more inclusive,

and then comes to the conclusion that:
3) We should commission deacons instead of ordain them,

then this appears to be calling Christ not inclusive enough, and disparaging his character. Not to mention a rather obvious violation of the regulative principle.

On the matter of authority: deacons exercise church power because they perform an action in / on behalf of the church. If Christ has instituted the office to perform certain functions of the church, then it is hard to make an argument for a man-made substitute called "commissioning." Who gives this commission? The church? Then the church is presuming the authority to create its own office and method of appointment - authority which Christ has not given to the church, in addition to declaring the insufficiency of the officer (and method of appointment) that Christ has instituted for that function.

The problem with "commissioning" isn't a problem of male-only or both genders in the diaconate. It is a problem primarily of principles. If they agree with the regulative principle, and are convinced that women should be able to serve as deacons, then there are denominations better suited to them than the PCA (for example, I believe the RPCNA, ARP, and EPC all permit women to be ordained as deacons). Insofar as they have put themselves in association with the PCA, and submitted to its government, it does not make sense to then invent a method of defying that government - especially when that defiance is done by denying one of the basic principles of our theology and practice.